Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:47, 24 December 2012 editNouniquenames (talk | contribs)5,250 edits →Talk:Islamophobia#Proposal_to_rename_article_to_.22Anti-Islamic_sentiment.22: done← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:57, 10 January 2025 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators59,083 edits →Deletion discussions: fix 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{admin backlog}}
<noinclude>{{noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}<!--
<!--
---------------------------------------------------------- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the corresponding section of this page and not here. New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of this page and not up here.
---------------------------------------------------------- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-->
--></noinclude>
{{redirect|WP:CR|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
<includeonly>{{TOC limit|3}}</includeonly>
{{redirect|WP:ANC|text=You may be looking for ]}}
<noinclude>{{adminbacklog}}
{{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}
{{shortcut|WP:ANRFC|WP:AN/RFC}}
]
{{archive box|box-width=250px|
{{Archive basics
image=]|
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d
:'''], ], ], ], ]'''
|counter = 37
}}</noinclude>
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
<includeonly>
|maxsize = 256000
== Requests for closure ==
}}
:''This section is transcluded from ].''</includeonly>
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
The '''Requests for closure noticeboard''' is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor ] on Misplaced Pages. Most discussions do not need to follow a formal process for closing and summarizing the result.
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive
|format= %%i
|age=4368
|archivenow=<!-- <nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved,{{Resolved,{{done,{{Done,{{DONE,{{already done,{{Already done,{{not done,{{Not done,{{notdone,{{close,{{Close,{{nd,{{tick,{{xXxX</nowiki> -->
|header={{Aan}}
|headerlevel=3
|maxarchsize=256000
|minkeepthreads=0
|numberstart=16
}}{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III}}
{{Shortcut|WP:CR|WP:RFCL|WP:ANRFC}}


<section begin=Instructions/>Use the '''closure requests noticeboard''' to ask an uninvolved editor to ]. Do so when ] appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our ]).
<center>'''Please post new requests at the ''end'' of the appropriate section(s).'''</center>
<noinclude>{{TOC limit|3}}


] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''
== Requests for closure ==
</noinclude>


Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, ] to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
===Article namespace===
<!--If the section becomes empty, then add "* None currently."-->


] '''Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.'''
====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 4 September 2012)? Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Thanks, ] (]) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. '''Do not continue the discussion here'''.
====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 23 September 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
:Is there anything to assess really? The editors there seem to have come to an agreement and moved on. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
::A definitive closure would be good. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


There is no fixed length for a formal ] (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 19 October 2012)? The RfC was started to determine because editors had conflicting views about which version the article should take. ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
:I don't think this needs formal closing. It loos like a typical talk page discussion that was tagged with an RfC to gather outside input. Discussion appears to have run its course without incident. -] (]) 17:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


] '''When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure'''.
====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 8 November 2012)? The RfC was about the phrase mentioned in the section's name. Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
:Another one I don't think needs a summary. -] (]) 17:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{tl|Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A ] can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 26 October 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


]
====]====
'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 3 October 2012)? Please make sure to consider ] in your close as well, since the RfC began in that section before it was separated. Please consider combining the two sections (perhaps making the first a subsection of the second) when closing the discussion. The RfC's opening poster wrote: "chiark does not host MindTerm." Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if ]. You should be familiar with all ] that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the ] page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
====] and ]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 October 2012 and a subsection of which is ]) and ] (initiated 15 November 2012). I have not read the two discussions, though both may be related to the same issue and should likely be considered by the same closer. Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
:{{comment}} First discussion is now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


'''Non-admins can close ''most'' discussions'''. ] your ] just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions ], or where implementing the closure ]. ] and ] processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
====]====
{{cot|title=Technical instructions for closers}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 8 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Please append {{tlx|Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{tlx|Close}} or {{tlx|Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{tlx|Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{tlx|Not done}}. '''After addressing a request, please mark the {{tlx|Initiated}} template with {{para|done|yes}}.''' ] will ] requests marked with {{tlx|Already done}}, {{tlx|Close}}, {{tlx|Done}} {{tlx|Not done}}, and {{tlx|Resolved}}.
{{cob}}
'''If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here'''. Instead follow advice at ].


<section end=Instructions/>
====]====
{{TOC limit|4}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 8 November 2012)? Please be sure to consider the related discussion at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
]


== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
====]====
* ]
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 11 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== Administrative discussions ==
====]====
<!--
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 13 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top)


Please ensure you add the {{initiated|date here}} template when placing a request here
====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 6 October 2012)? Please also consider ], which discusses the same topic. When closing the discussion consider making one section (perhaps the newer one) a subsection of the other one and enclose the entire discussion in archive templates. This ensures that RfC participants are aware that you considered both discussions in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


*** PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! &nbsp;Let a bot do it. &nbsp;Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. ***
====]====
Place new administrative discussions below this line using a level 3 heading -->
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 14 October 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


=== ]===
====]====
{{initiated|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 25 October 2012)? Initiated by an employee of the company, the RfC seems to be about how the the article's "Vertical Integration" section should be modified. Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
===Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}


== Requests for comment ==
====]====
<!--
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 9 November 2012)? The opening poster wrote: "I don't have the time or interest to follow up on this, but it seems to me that and similar earlier edits suppress valuable information on the history of this business." Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Please place entries ordered by the date the RFC was initiated (oldest at top)


Please ensure you add the {{initiated|*date here*}} template when placing a request here
====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 10 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


*** PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! Let a bot do it. Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. ***
====]====
-->
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 12 November 2012)? The RfC is about which of two versions of the article is preferred. Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{initiated|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 26 October 2012)? The opening poster wrote: "I have requested outside commentary on whether we should include any reference to the FAZ story and associated sources in this article." Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


===] ===
====]====
{{Initiated|11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)}} Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 17 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''] ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


=== ] ===
====]====
{{Initiated|19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)}} RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. ] (]) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


====]==== === ] ===
{{Initiated|16:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 1 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate ]. However, the owning editor is engaging in ] behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including . When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "" and then The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be ] with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --] (]) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


====]==== === ] ===
{{initiated|22:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)}} Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 25 October 2012; see the subsection at ]). When closing the discussion please consider enclosing the entire discussion beginning from ] in closing templates to demonstrate the entire discussion was read. Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
:{{a note}} Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. ] (]) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{Initiated|20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)}} slowed for a while ] (]) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 29 October 2012)? The question posed was: <blockquote>] is listed on this wikipedia page under the ''Partially recognised states'' heading. However, unlike the cited states, it has no recognition as an independent state and is instead internationally recognised as an ] of ]. Given this, would it be more accurate to list the territory under a new, separate sub-heading titled ''Unrecognised territories'' or some variation thereof?</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


====]==== === ] ===
{{Initiated| 08:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}} Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. ] (]) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 31 October 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
====]====
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 20 October 2012)? The opening poster wrote: "I object to the use of the phrase 'Ubuntu is a form of adware'." Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
<!-- Place this line below the heading:
{{Initiated|<date and time when RfC was opened, in the format as would be produced by ~~~~~>}}
If the discussion is not an RfC (which is the default), add a |type=xxx code for the discussion type, e.g. |type=drv for deletion review; see Template:Initiated/doc for a list of codes.
-->


== Deletion discussions ==
====]====
{{XFD backlog|right}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 7 December 2012). The last comment was made on 8 December 2012. Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{initiated|1 January 2025|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 October 2012)? Please consider the discussion at ] and make one section (perhaps the newer one) a subsection of the older one and enclose the entire discussion with closing templates to demonstrate that you have read both sections. Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{initiated|31 December 2024|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 21 April 2012; see also the 28 October RfC at ]). Please consider enclosing the entire discussion in closing templates to demonstrate to the RfC participants that you have reviewed the entire discussion beginning from ]. Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
====]====
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 October 2012)? The opening poster wrote: "Is the lead neutral? It seems to be excessive in dismissing the ALCAT test and objectively labeling it as 'not supported by research'." Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


== Other types of closing requests ==
====]====
<!--
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 October 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top).


Please ensure you add the {{initiated|*date here*}} template when placing a request here.
====]====
We need someone to close this: the dispute is ongoing and I think there's enough opinions for an admin to decide on the issue, which in itself is relatively simple: to include or not include a conviction for animal cruelty in the BLP of a musician. Thanks for your quick attention! ] (]) 15:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


*** PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! Let a bot do it. Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. ***
====]====
-->
No input for over a week in a widely participated discussion. Honestly, the consensus is clear, but it would be nice to get a formal close so we can get on with things. –] (] &sdot; ]) 00:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
:{{done}}


===]===
====]====
{{initiated|25 September 2024}} Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 November 2012)? The 30-day RfC template has expired and there are concerns raised about whether the RfC was even properly formulated in the first place. The discussion is largely dominated by 2 editors arguing back and forth with each other; input from other contributors seems to be minimal at this point and it seems a formal closure is needed. --] (]) 16:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


===]===
=== Misplaced Pages namespace ===
{{initiated|29 October 2024}} There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. ]] 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
<!--If the section becomes empty, than add "* None currently."-->


===]===
==== ] ====
{{initiated|7 November 2024}} Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. ] (]) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Please also consider {{user|John Carter}}'s comment at ]: <blockquote>I think that it would make sense, sometime in the future, to have the request for comment here be gone over by someone, possibly uninvolved, who could "boil down" the various comments into clear proposals.</blockquote> This could facilitate a ], which would have a clearer scope and outcome. Thanks, ] (]) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


* {{a note}} I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. ] (]) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 22 September 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
:The discussion is now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


===]===
====]====
{{initiated|11:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)}} Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. ] (] • ]) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Needs an appropiate closure. Eraserhead1's closures on DYK caused spark, so any other administrator is recommended. --] (]) 04:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
:{{comment}} Discussion is now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
::I don't know why anyone would close anything at DYK to be honest. You guys will just complain regardless and the behaviour was so bad in the last closure that you guys couldn't agree sensible conditions for a ''review'' of the last closure.
::Additionally, you, the requester, made no effort to defend either the closure or the review. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 09:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
:::To be clear there is no particular problem with challenging my closure - we all make mistakes. However at the end of the day you guys were responsible for the review request. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 14:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===
====]====
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 3 October 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 13 October 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Gracias. --] (]) 19:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at ] (initiated 17 October 2012)? The opening poster wrote: "I propose this motion to drop the restriction on actresses in ] so that we could restore Category:Actresses and foster all relevant subcats, like ]." Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 12 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 14 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 October 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 31 October 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 16 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
:It would be appreciated if an experienced editor would look at this RFC to determine what, if any, consensus exists. --]]] 11:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 12 November 2012) and implement any changes to the policy (if any)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
*I have closed this. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 11:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
If an admin could take a look at ] and determine if there is consensus it would be appreciated. Note that as the discussion deals specifically with non-admin closing, it may be prudent for non-admin closers to avoid closing it. ]] 23:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
There is a serious backlog at RfD with some discussions as old as 17 November remaining open. I cannot close any of the remaining old discussions and many that can be closed by non admins have been, so action from other administrators is needed. ] (]) 11:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

=== Other namespaces ===
<!--If the section becomes empty, than add "* None currently."-->

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 13 November 2012)? The question posed was: "should we go and rename all these categories accordingly (People from Foo)?" Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 1 November 2012)? After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to ]. Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 3 November 2012)? After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to ]. Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? See also ]. Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
See motion to close and summary with overwhelming consensus support at ]. ] (]) 17:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

=== Premature close requests ===
<!--If the section becomes empty, than add "* None currently."-->
* None currently.

<noinclude>

== Thanks to closers ==
Thank you, {{user|Drmies}}, {{user|Beeblebrox}}, {{user|TParis}}, and {{user|Jafeluv}}, for your RfC closes. Although the previous section was moved to ], I'd rather place the thank you note here so it will be more visible to RfC closers. ] (]) 07:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
:Thank you, {{user|Drmies}}, {{user|Dennis Brown}}, {{user|TParis}}, {{user|Hobit}}, {{user|Joe Decker}}, {{user|Sven Manguard}}, {{user|Sandstein}}, {{user|Beeblebrox}}, {{user|NULL}}, {{user|Jafeluv}}, {{user|Tijfo098}}, {{user|Nathan Johnson}}, {{user|BrownHairedGirl}}, {{user|Electriccatfish2}}, and {{user|Moe Epsilon}}, for your closes. ] (]) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks to {{user|Eraserhead1}} for closing the discussion on WT:ITN and finally resolving this issue. - ] ] · ] ] (]) 20:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Thank you, {{user|Moe Epsilon}}, {{user|Nathan Johnson}}, {{user|Churn and change}}, {{user|Jafeluv}}, {{user|MBisanz}}, {{user|Thine Antique Pen}}, {{user|DrKiernan}}, {{user|Beeblebrox}}, {{user|Eraserhead1}}, {{user|Futuretrillionaire}}, {{user|Drmies}}, {{user|Dr.K.}}, {{user|Armbrust}}, {{user|Philosopher}}, {{user|Samsara}}, {{user|Basalisk}}, {{user|Reaper Eternal}}, {{user|Mike Selinker}}, {{user|MER-C}}, {{user|I Jethrobot}}, and {{user|TParis}} for your closes. I am grateful to you all. ] (]) 02:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes, thanks to editors ] and ] for their help in closing the RfC at ]. ]] <small>(note: not a ]!)</small> 02:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
::::Thank you, {{user|Armbrust}}, {{user|Jc37}}, {{user|Σ}}, {{user|Nathan Johnson}}, {{user|SilkTork}}, {{user|MSGJ}}, {{user|Callanecc}}, {{user|Alanscottwalker}}, {{user|TParis}}, and {{user|Eraserhead1}}, for your closes. ] (]) 02:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to {{User|28bytes}} for closing two very long ban discussions. <small>]</small> 23:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to ] for putting us out of our misery at an RfC/U that had gone on too long. --] (]) 15:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
:Thank you, {{user|Ks0stm}}, {{user|Gigs}}, {{user|Nathan Johnson}}, {{user|28bytes}}, {{user|Armbrust}}, {{user|Fayenatic london}}, {{user|Eraserhead1}}, {{user|Beeblebrox}}, {{user|George Ho}}, {{user|Σ}}, {{user|Apteva}}, {{user|Nouniquenames}}, {{user|ChrisGualtieri}}, {{user|Coren}}, {{user|Goodraise}}, {{user|Vanisaac}}, {{user|Monty845}}, {{user|JzG}}, {{user|Hex}}, and {{user|Hasteur}}, for your closes. Your help in assessing the consensus at RfCs and other discussions is much appreciated. ] (]) 16:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
<!-- Page footers -->
</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 20:57, 10 January 2025

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction. "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Assume no clue.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Archiving icon
    Archives

    Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39


    This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.
    Shortcuts

    Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

    Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

    Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

    Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

    On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

    There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

    When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

    Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

    Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

    Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

    Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

    Technical instructions for closers

    Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

    If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.


    Other areas tracking old discussions

    Administrative discussions

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

    (Initiated 28 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

    (Initiated 26 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

    Requests for comment

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

    (Initiated 94 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

    (Initiated 74 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    information Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

    (Initiated 65 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

    (Initiated 56 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Israel#RfC

    (Initiated 49 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    information Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

    (Initiated 34 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk:Wicked (2024 film)#RfC on whether credited name or common name should be used

    (Initiated 30 days ago on 11 December 2024) Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. Happily888 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

    Deletion discussions

    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 17 9 26
    TfD 0 0 0 1 1
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 7 6 13
    RfD 0 0 34 15 49
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

    (Initiated 21 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

    (Initiated 9 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

    (Initiated 10 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

    Other types of closing requests

    Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

    (Initiated 107 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 73 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

    (Initiated 64 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    • information Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 44 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

    Categories: